Note: London period. From April 23, 1902

---

If not, then let him raise these questions anew and we shall of course resolve them in such a way as not to intensify the conflict. For my part, I promise to make every effort to ensure that the printing-house is not moved to L[ondon] before his arrival, so as not to make a general move to Gen[eva] finally impossible, should we (all) become convinced that this is the best outcome. After grumbling on the theme that "I shall be mocked if I raise the question of a new move to Gen[eva] in L[ondon]," he agreed with this resolution, but departed not entirely satisfied. V. I. Z[asulitch] travelled with him as far as Basel, where she stayed with him for a day. She arrived yesterday in a completely transformed mood (you understand how she has suffered all this time); Plekh[anov], according to her account, suddenly capitulated: "let us reach a settlement," admitted that all his discontent with Lenin, with the article on R. N. S. [Struve] and etc., with the conduct of the *Iskra* and so on — results from his grievance over the fact that "he is being banished to Geneva," asked me to convey that he should not "be angry" and promised to come to L[ondon] in J[une] already, before the conference¹²) and even began to speak of what sort of "regime" he would introduce in London. He said nothing further about dragging us back to Gen[eva]. V. I. [Zasulitch] thinks that neither this question nor the question of "division" will he raise again (she has quite blossomed). In any case, we must before his arrival give no new pretexts or false pretexts for raising the inconveniences of London, send him everything, in response to his "advice" to change this or that, ask whether he is putting forward this proposal formally and if so, then let him put it to the vote*) and so on. Then, until June (i.e., over the course of 2 months) it is necessary (for c o r r e c t n e s s) not to move the printing-house. Now I am almost certain that after his arrival this entire c o n f l i c t will be filed away in the archives. We must find a person for the typewriter to relieve Maria Stepanovna¹³).

I am definitely leaving here on Thursday; it is possible that V. Dm. [Zasulitch] is travelling with me, unwilling to remain here. I have declined Paris; I am travelling through Belg[ium], where I shall lose no more than 2 d[ays]. Let Alekseev send me the address to Brussels (Mr. Berg, Poste restante — main post office) and a recommendation to one of the more reliable Brussels R[ussians]. I shall read a report here on Wednesd[ay].

The Berliners wrote that yet another journalist¹⁵) has apparently disappeared, and yesterday I read in G[erman] newspapers that at the border in Verzhbolovo a "nihilist" was captured with 2 suitcases of literature in a false bottom, and that this is the 3rd such case within 2 weeks. Evidently things are going badly. I shall try to convince the veterin[arian]¹⁶) not to take the journal.

I shake your hand.

Both the peat-bog [materials] and the Tula [materials] were handed over for correspondence and the former were even partly recopied by K. P. I do not understand what the matter is.

From a letter of friends to B. N. [Noskov] it follows that Kviatkovsky too was arrested in Kishinev¹⁴).

---

*) *coup d'état* — state coup.

*) This refers to an article by Molotov (Parvus): "European Workers and Their Russian Historian," published in *Zarya* No. 1, pp. 187-230.

¹⁵) *Vorwärts* — "Forward" — the central organ of German Social Democracy. This refers to an article by Ignotus (Martov): "The Lübeck Party Convention of German Social Democracy" (*Zarya* Nos. 2-3, pp. 404-424), in which it was pointed out that *Vorwärts* had taken a position of benevolent neutrality toward Bernsteinism.

⁴) M. A. Stakhovich — Oryol provincial marshal of the nobility, a well-known liberal. This refers to his speech in September 1901 in Oryol in defence of freedom of conscience at a missionary congress, to which he proposed to "proclaim the necessity of freedom of conscience... and raise this petition through appropriate channels."

*Zarya*, in an article by Lenin, called this speech naive, and wrote of him: "...Mr. Stakhovich is interesting to us, of course, not as an example of a man with clear and consistent political thought, but as an example of the most 'cheerful' Russian noble, always ready to snatch a piece of state pie." (T. X. [N. Lenin] Internal Survey, ch. IV. Two Speeches of Marshals. *Zarya* Nos. 2-3, p. 392.)

⁵) This refers to an article by D. Ayasov: "*Habeas corpus*" and an article by L. B. K.: "Village Reminiscences" (*Zarya* No. 4, pp. 32-42).

⁶) This refers to Plekhanov's book: "On the Question of the Development of the Monistic View of History," published in December 1894 under the pseudonym Beltov (see Works, Vol. VII) and V. I. Lenin's article: "The Economic Content of Populism and Its Critique in Mr. Struve's Book," printed in 1895 under the signature K. Tulin in the collection: "Materials for the Characterization of Our Economic Development" (see Collected Works, Vol. II). This indication by Plekhanov of the differences between him and Lenin on the question of liberals as early as the mid-90s is extraordinarily significant.